• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:


  • Total voters
    133
Re: FairTaxFraud.com

Yeah, but that wouldn't get (good, manufacturing) jobs to come back to the USA.

No, but it would allow us to gain tax revenue from those things, which that post I quoted was purported to do so.
 
Re: FairTaxFraud.com

No, but it would allow us to gain tax revenue from those things, which that post I quoted was purported to do so.

Sure, it would, but the Fair Tax would tax them without making them legal, which would be easier. That's all I'm saying. Fair Tax isn't the only way to do it - I understand.
 
Ha! I'm promoting a lower tax for _ME_, and I'm square in the middle of the middle class. Sent $17K to the Feds in 2008. Would like to have ALL that money in my pockets. Prices really won't go up as much as the detractors are trying to say.

Since there are a whole lot more people making less than $200,000 than there are making greater than $200,000, I can't really see this regressive consumption tax going anywhere. Especially, since the majority of us have felt the pain of Bush's last tax cuts to the wealthy.
 
LOL! You call FactCheck.org biased and you reference The Tax Foundation, an organization set up by wealthy corporations to work to lower their taxes. I guess that makes sense if you are promoting a lower tax for those making over $200,000 a year, and a higher tax for those making less.

The proof is in the real facts. Factcheck, an arm of the Annenberg group, is better than most and I do refer to it quite a bit, but it does depend on mostly left wing contributors to survive. Therefore, it does try not to be an ideological organization, but it cannot be completely neutral and unbiased either.

The Tax Foundation has been around since 1937 and was founded when business executives of both political parties became dismayed at irresponsible fiscal policy of both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. It now analyzes and supports and criticizes actions of whatever party is in power and it really is a neutral organization where politics are concerned, but it does hold to some pretty non-negotiable principles. (Somewhere in the back of my mind, I'm thinking Bill Ahern, its current chief executive, is a Democrat, but I'm not positive about that.)

Anyhow, the principles of the Tax Foundation are pretty straight forward. I think all of us discussing what kind of tax system we want should consider that within the framework of these principles:

Simplicity: Administrative costs are a loss to society, and complicated taxation undermines voluntary compliance by creating incentives to shelter and disguise income.

Transparency: Tax legislation should be based on sound legislative procedures and careful analysis. A good tax system requires informed taxpayers who understand how tax assessment, collection, and compliance works. There should be open hearings and revenue estimates should be fully explained and replicable.

Neutrality: The fewer economic decisions that are made for tax reasons, the better. The primary purpose of taxes is to raise needed revenue, not to micromanage the economy. The tax system should not favor certain industries, activities, or products.

Stability: When tax laws are in constant flux, long-range financial planning is difficult. Lawmakers should avoid enacting temporary tax laws, including tax holidays and amnesties.

No Retroactivity: As a corollary to the principle of stability, taxpayers should rely with confidence on the law as it exists when contracts are signed and transactions made.

Broad Bases and Low Rate: As a corollary to the principle of neutrality, lawmakers should avoid enacting targeted deductions, credits and exclusions. If such tax preferences are few, substantial revenue can be raised with low tax rates. Broad-based taxes can also produce relatively stable tax revenues from year to year.
The Tax Foundation - About the Tax Foundation
 
Last edited:
Since there are a whole lot more people making less than $200,000 than there are making greater than $200,000, I can't really see this regressive consumption tax

Can't be regressive, since the poor don't pay a dime of it.

BTW, you want regressive? How about the income tax? In addition to the 7.65% payroll tax that EVERYBODY pays, including the poor, including down to the 1st dollar they make, there's the embedded income tax in the product that are built in this country. The 35% corporate income tax has the effect of passing along anywhere from about 10% to 22% of the price of the product being just paying the income tax. 7.65% + 22% - the poor person is feeling the effects of the income tax possibly in the high 20%'s of all the money he makes.

The FAIR TAX is NOT regressive, the INCOME TAX is HIGHLY regressive.

going anywhere. Especially, since the majority of us have felt the pain of Bush's last tax cuts to the wealthy.

Don't know what that has to do with anything - that's apples to the Fair Tax's oranges.
 
Re: FairTaxFraud.com

I can see from the demeanor, and factual errors of this particular post, that you are going to simply ignore any arguments that I come up with for the fair tax. Your previous articles to which you refer by number are, largely, simply assertions without any numbers to back them up. So, since it is incredibly time-consuming to answer a post this long on a point-by-point basis, I'm just going to hit the high spots.
The numbers are from The Congressonal Joint committee on Taxes and the US Treasury Department and other analyses.
and publishd in the NYT, WSJ, etc.

The Fairtax CULT claimed number is from ITSELF.
When askd to 'prove god' you can't cite the Bible.
Unbelievable.


Rent - where I come from, pretty much anyone can buy a house, just not a new house. No real NEED for rent. Here's a few offerings; these are good houses, not decrepit fixer-uppers:

$11,000:
310 S Poplar, Fostoria, OH, 44830 - MLS
Just 3 examples.

Maybe in Fostoria Ohio.. but this is Hardly representative of the country!
Unrepresentative ANECDOTE from Busted town, USA isn't logic or Empirical evidence.
Natl avg home prices are more like 200K.

The 'embedded cost' BS is common and false.
It's Fairytax that creates layers of embedded costs, .... and even the embedded cost assertion was true, Fairytax would have to Raise it's claimed rate to make up for the accompanying price drop/revenue loss.
30% would have to go to 36% because of the Ostensible 20% embed.
That goes for much of the argument not quoted.

If, as you can read from the analysys, the Govt doesn't pay Itself/Circle Jerk that Fairtax has to go up another 25% a Govt spending is so much of the economy.


People's insurance companies are going to pay for their heart operations, just like they do now. Having the income tax go away are going to make these operations, and all medical things cheaper. We're going to be replacing one tax with another, so it is not valid to ignore the 1st tax going away while dealing with the effects of the 2nd tax. It will balance out, and mostly in favor of the American people.
Health Insurance/Healthcare is a necessity that will just get yet more expensive for those who can't afford andf isn't nearly, like rent, offset by the bogus Prebate.

You're rant about who thought of the fair tax and what the rich might be getting or not betrays your underpinnings; You're upset that the Fair Tax is absolutely no good as an instrument to "stick it to the rich." Nope, its for financing the government, not for punishing success.
Completely Wrong.
I manage money for a living. I don't want "to stick it to me", but I do know we can't shift the Burden down any more.
It's indisputable Income and Standard of Living disparity are at all time highs and growing.

As it is [Even] now we have to send out stimulous checks so the little guy can afford the most basic things like cars and computers... and utilities and prescriptions.
You can't Add to those basic costs... and you can't take any more from those who are in the bottom 50%.
The only reason, in fact, stimulous checks were sent out is that (all agree) it's So Bad the litlle guy can't afford to buy the products that Support the Big Guys stocks!
So We Had both parties agreeing.
But that's the proof of the pudding as I've said several times in this string to which you've put up only pitiful answers.

You're wrong about the example of the rich that I gave. In order for the rich to be paying capital gains, they'd have to own some stocks. I said, they just sat on their pile of money, and if anything, they invested in some municipal bonds. Their tax liability under the income tax is zero. Nada. Nothing. If they don't have any muni bonds, then the same thing. And, of course, there's $10 - $15 trillion dollars ALREADY overseas, both legally and illegally, for the single, sole purpose of avoiding the income tax. It works, too. With the Fair Tax, it will come rushing back into the country, either to invest in works that will ultimately create jobs, or be put in banks, who will loan it out to entrepreneurs that will build factories, in order to make money, and.. that will create more jobs.
As I said, I manage money.
The Rich by-and-large DO have Stocks and Capital Gains and Dividends, they aren't all in Municipal Bonds!
How Ridiculous!
Ever heard of 'Hedge Funds'.
Those are pools of Rich people's money earnng LARGE but TAXABLE returns.


I own some municipal bonds.. about 10% of my portfolio.. but the vast majority of rich are far more aggressive than that both in Stocks, TaxABLE bonds and Private equity. All Now Taxable.

And what will offset the Income tax receipts, to just name One well known pool, of the top 5 in each of the Fortune 500's salaries .. many into 8 Digits a year.. all Now Taxable.

Millions of less well off are goint to have to make up for those lost Income tax receipts when they buy their Ham and cheese Sandwiches, Cheerios, and Antibiotics.

You may be an authority on Fostoria Ohio but you clearly no Nothing about the Rich or the economy.
NOTHING.

You get hung up on the rate of foreign wages..
Yeah, I guess at $1 an hour I just know we can't compete.
That's what did ruin the 'Rust belt' if NOT the economy as a whole.

The economy _has_ been gutted over the last 50 years. Go see the hulks of buildings in new England, that used to be textile mills. Go to Pittsburgh,...
Yes but that's My point.
Those are the businesses that can't compete with Foreign Wages.
And why houses in Fostoria sell for ZIP.
But the economy was doing very well until that and other places more tech etc oriented have Boomed.

We just need to spread the wealth some by not Continually dropping tax rates on the rich (as Bush did with Cap Gains/Divs) and thereby rasing the Deficit and creating more Inflation/The Hidden TAX on us all.

You're 56 / 57 percent rants as figures for the fair tax are laughable. You have no math basis on which to base them, only the political rants from a website that was created to attack a Republican candidate for president last year.

The NY Times/Wall Street Journal... and the Dep Treas secretary, and the Congressional Joint commitee on Taxation, US Treasury dept... are "politcal rants"!!
While you accept the Self-Stated CULT'S number of 23/30%?

This is Ridiculous and beneath debate, but obviously necessary for you to maintain the illusion/delusion.


As also stated in one of my links.. no need to worry tho..
Everyone with Half a Brain knows this baby isn't going anywhere and can't even get serious hearings because it would be Laughed out of the room.
(and no one wants to perjur themselves under oath as opposed to paid opinion pieces)
It's a clear JOKE/transparent Scam on it's face to 3 digit IQers.

Nor do we have any answers to the Myriad of other facts in those articles beyond the Bogus Rate of Fairy tax.
-
 
Last edited:
The biggest problem with a progressive tax structure is the power it gives congress.

It pits net tax producers against Net tax consumers. Politicians gain power by promising a majority of the voters that all the government goodies they want will be paid for by ever-escalating tax rate hikes on a MINORITY that cannot out vote them.

This short sighted mindset wins elections for those who pander to the looter mentality but in the long run they only cut their own throats because the rich will leave and the standard of living for the dependency addicts decreases and they no longer will be able to make a better life for themselves due to their own industry

EVERYONE should suffer when taxes are raised. That is why I favor a sales tax or in the alternative a flat tax where everyone pays something. If you lose nothing when taxes are raised, you have absolutely NO INCENTIVE to demand less spending and less taxes.
 
I fail to see how just because I earn more money than another, I have to pay more than they do.

Plainly: Percents are annoying. Sales tax is interesting, but still annoying. Have each person make the same contribution to taxes as the person next to them. If Person X is paying $2500 in taxes, then Person Y will be paying the exact same.
 
Okay, how about this?

Nobody pays any federal income tax on income up to the poverty line. That takes care of rent, groceries, underwear, bus fare, and maybe even a movie ticket now and then.

A flat tax - one flat percentage rate is paid by everybody across the board on all income above the established poverty line.

No welfare or any other charity of any kind will be dispensed by the Federal government but that will become the responsibility of the states who can set whatever standards they wish for that.

The Federal government will not spend one dime that it does not absolutely have to spend until all required obligations are met and there is money left over in the treasury.

The Federal government will not spend one dime that is not accounted for on line on an easily accessable and understandable website.

So there you would have the simplicity, fairness, economy, practicality, and transparency called for by the Tax Foundation.
 
Last edited:
It pits net tax producers against Net tax consumers. Politicians gain power by promising a majority of the voters that all the government goodies they want will be paid for by ever-escalating tax rate hikes on a MINORITY that cannot out vote them.

That is the exact opposite of what has happened in reality. The top tax rate has been steadily declining over the last 50 years. Nice rhetoric though.:roll:

Scroll to towards the bottom for a chart of the top tax rate throughout the 20th century. The 35% rate today is considerably lower than the typical rate of the previous century.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States]Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
We have an inefficient version of this already.

But we do not have a flat rate tax system. We could just carry that over to the flat tax system.

Please tell me you do not think poor people should have to pay taxes? I feel if you fall under a set budget you should not have to pay anything and of course if you are on public aid should pay nothing.
 
But we do not have a flat rate tax system. We could just carry that over to the flat tax system.

Please tell me you do not think poor people should have to pay taxes? I feel if you fall under a set budget you should not have to pay anything and of course if you are on public aid should pay nothing.

I'm saying that people who earn below X amount should be exempted from income taxes altogether, as opposed to the inefficient system we have where they pay taxes up front, then receive that amount back later.

Whether we do this in our current tax system or in some hybrid or flat tax system makes no difference to me (on that issue).
 
The FAIR TAX is NOT regressive, the INCOME TAX is HIGHLY regressive.

LOL! Only the clear channel crowd believes that so it might be a catchy slogan for the tea baggers party. Party on Garth!
 
I fail to see the justice in a flat tax. If the same revenue has to be generated, introducing a flat tax would mean that the rich would get tax cuts while ordinary citizens and the poor would have to pay more. Furthermore a flat tax would mean that money used for luxuries would be taxed as hard as money used for necessities. That does not seem fair.

The money you need for rent, utilities, food and fuel should not be taxed as heavily as those used for conspicuous consumption by the rich.

"Flat tax" is basically class warfare by the rich who want all other people to bear more of the tax burden.
 
What do rich people have against giving back to the system that made them so wealthy in the first place? Even after progressive income tax, the wealthy class still has more money than the lower ones, so shut the hell up and keep abusing it.....
 
What do rich people have against giving back to the system that made them so wealthy in the first place? Even after progressive income tax, the wealthy class still has more money than the lower ones, so shut the hell up and keep abusing it.....

Greed. They could care less about all of us folks "under" them that has earned them their bread and butter. They look down on blue collar workers and one day? The REAL working people of this country can and will revolt and set things right.
 
Greed. They could care less about all of us folks "under" them that has earned them their bread and butter. They look down on blue collar workers and one day? The REAL working people of this country can and will revolt and set things right.

I agree. I'm offering rhetoric to the mentally stagnant.
 
I fail to see the justice in a flat tax. If the same revenue has to be generated, introducing a flat tax would mean that the rich would get tax cuts while ordinary citizens and the poor would have to pay more. Furthermore a flat tax would mean that money used for luxuries would be taxed as hard as money used for necessities. That does not seem fair.

The money you need for rent, utilities, food and fuel should not be taxed as heavily as those used for conspicuous consumption by the rich.

"Flat tax" is basically class warfare by the rich who want all other people to bear more of the tax burden.

?

If there were a nation wide flat tax of 5% - how exactly would that equal to the 'rich' getting tax cuts?
 
?

If there were a nation wide flat tax of 5% - how exactly would that equal to the 'rich' getting tax cuts?

5% of a large amount of money is not incredibly influential on a rich man's pocket book.

5% of end's meat could be insanely dangerous. food? education? shelter?

example: $130,000 x.05= 7,000. Leftover income: $123,000(cry me a ****ing river)
example: $38,000 x.05= $1,900. Leftover income $36,100(this could be the difference between rent and no rent)

Obviously though, its more intense than 5%, further supporting my theory that the flat tax is moronic and levies most of the societal financial burden on the poor, and lets the rich stay richer, and further cleavage the social hierarchy. Hey, I'd be ok with aspects of modern economics IF meritocracy and market principles existed vis-a-vis the 60's but its 2010.

There's this sort of conservative mantra that " eliminating public mandated taxation would incline me to privately donate"

bull****. Conservatism is a dying breed. A white rich old mans "hands off, its not my problem" brand.
 
Last edited:
?

If there were a nation wide flat tax of 5% - how exactly would that equal to the 'rich' getting tax cuts?

If they were paying more taxes before, a 5 % flat tax would be a tax cut.

I fail to see how a 5 % flat tax could bring about the same revenue as the current system.
 
I fail to see the justice in a flat tax. If the same revenue has to be generated, introducing a flat tax would mean that the rich would get tax cuts while ordinary citizens and the poor would have to pay more. Furthermore a flat tax would mean that money used for luxuries would be taxed as hard as money used for necessities. That does not seem fair.

The money you need for rent, utilities, food and fuel should not be taxed as heavily as those used for conspicuous consumption by the rich.

"Flat tax" is basically class warfare by the rich who want all other people to bear more of the tax burden.

I'm not a proponent of a flat tax, but you should at least make an effort not to willfully misrepresent their position. Pretty much every flat tax proposal that I'm familiar with includes exemptions for necessities like food, rent, health care, etc., so the tax would only be imposed on consumption beyond that baseline.

What do rich people have against giving back to the system that made them so wealthy in the first place? Even after progressive income tax, the wealthy class still has more money than the lower ones, so shut the hell up and keep abusing it.....

There's a highly developed position on taxation if I ever heard one. "You're rich anyway so shut up and we'll just tax you as much as we want."

Greed. They could care less about all of us folks "under" them that has earned them their bread and butter. They look down on blue collar workers and one day? The REAL working people of this country can and will revolt and set things right.

:rofl

The odds of the "working people" revolting at any point in the near future are roughly zero.
 
Re: FairTaxFraud.com

Exactly as I expected - a post full of ridicule and attitude that you're the only one that knows anything. But when you make errors such as those in your previous post:

"Under Fairtax the Domestic Car company has to pay it's suppliers 30% More, and has to pay the Railroad Company which brings is Coal 30% More, The Coal company itself 30% more, the Railroad company has to pay 30% more when it buys new cars, or new rails, and so down the line.. taxing at every level and Increasing costs."

claiming that the fair tax would tax the materials and services that businesses use to produce their products, it shows you don't have a clue about how the Fair Tax works. Therefore, there's no way you could actually have attempted to evaluate it for yourself.

And there's no way that anyone should have reason to believe anything you say on the subject, since you clearly don't understand anything about what you're writing about.

You just like to hear your own rhetoric, thus these laughably inaccurate posts.
 
What do rich people have against giving back to the system that made them so wealthy in the first place? Even after progressive income tax, the wealthy class still has more money than the lower ones, so shut the hell up and keep abusing it.....

Actually most rich people don't have anything against giving back to the society in which they prospered. That's why you see so many of their names on gold plates on stuff in museums and hospital wings and science labs and new education buildings and libraries and scholarship funds and charitable and cultural, educational, and research foundations and sporting facilities etc etc etc. They give land for homeless shelters and orphanages and camps for kids, sponsor Little League and bowling teams, buy enormous quantities of mostly worthless merchandise to help out with fund raising projects, donate cars to drivers ed programs, and give huge quantities of cash to relief efforts and charitable causes. It makes them feel good to do it, because they can. Most poor people can't. Rich people also run the businesses that hire the poor people and give them a chance to make themselves rich.

But the large majority of rich people, just like everybody else, acquired their wealth ethically, honorably, and honestly just like everybody else, and they have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like everybody else.

The minute you adopt the attitude that Citizen A has more than Citizen B for whatever reason and therefore it is okay to forcibly take some of what Citizen A has and not Citizen B, you generate and promote corruption. When you adopt the attitude that all people are entitled to the fruit of their own labor without prejudice, you have a society that is truly free and open and inspirational to all who aspire to make their own lives better.

A flat tax is the most fair, equitable, and least regressive way to raise revenues to fund the necessary responsibility and obligations of government. Because they have more, the rich will pay much more than the poor, but if everybody pays, everybody has a valid stake in the system and it is far more difficult to corrupt.
 
Last edited:
Right, trust me if we keep on the road we are on? There will be an uprise. People are sick and tired of the gov. and their lies.
 
Actually most rich people don't have anything against giving back to the society in which they prospered. That's why you see so many of their names on gold plates on stuff in museums and hospital wings and science labs and new education buildings and libraries and scholarship funds and charitable and cultural, educational, and research foundations and sporting facilities etc etc etc. They give land for homeless shelters and orphanages and camps for kids, sponsor Little League and bowling teams, buy enormous quantities of mostly worthless merchandise to help out with fund raising projects, donate cars to drivers ed programs, and give huge quantities of cash to relief efforts and charitable causes. It makes them feel good to do it, because they can. Most poor people can't.

So the rich should get heavy tax cuts because a few of them distributes a small fraction of their wealth as alms for the poor?

I think it would be much more efficient to fund all these good and useful things through taxation. This ensures that the provision of public goods is decided in a democratic way instead of being controlled by the whims of rich people who want a monument for their greater glory.

Rich people also run the businesses that hire the poor people and give them a chance to make themselves rich.
:rofl

But the large majority of rich people, just like everybody else, acquired their wealth ethically, honorably, and honestly just like everybody else, and they have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like everybody else.

I fail to see how progressive taxation threatens rich people's right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. We are talking about taxing them; not killing them or sending them to Guantanamo (although prison time seems a fair punishment for some of the financial terrorists who wrecked the economy by gambling on derivates and plundered public funds to the bailouts).

The minute you adopt the attitude that Citizen A has more than Citizen B for whatever reason and therefore it is okay to forcibly take some of what Citizen A has and not Citizen B, you generate and promote corruption. When you adopt the attitude that all people are entitled to the fruit of their own labor without prejudice, you have a society that is truly free and open and inspirational to all who aspire to make their own lives better.

Hard work and labour don't make you rich. The ultra-rich did not become rich because they worked more than everyone else. What makes you rich is owning stuff like banks or insurance companies.

A flat tax is the most fair, equitable, and least regressive way to raise revenues to fund the necessary responsibility and obligations of government. Because they have more, the rich will pay much more than the poor, but if everybody pays, everybody has a valid stake in the system and it is far more difficult to corrupt.

As far as I see it the calls for a flat tax is in itself an expression of the corruption of the system by the rich who will benefit most from such a tax.

A flat tax will make the rich richer and everyone else poorer.
 
Back
Top Bottom